delete 123

grumbler

[DELETED USER] said:

grumbler said:

frayedknot said:

Thing is, if your garage is up to the boundary your neighbours have just as much right to build up to it.

Apparently, it's not just built up to it, but "cemented to it" and with a "roof attached on one side to their wall".

We can only guess what on earth "cemented to it" means.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cemented

cement

verb
to put cement on a surface or stick things together using cement

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cemented
to unite by or as if by cement:
to cement stones to form a wall; to cement a relationship.

Hint: if you don't understand a word just type it into Google or dictionary.com.

Thank you for the lesson. Now tell me, please, what exactly was "united to form a wall" in this case, where the wall already existed. And I can assure you, you cannot 'stick' anything to a wall using cement. You can only fill a gap.

Or was it about a relationship?

troffasky

Absent the photographs that the OP is unwilling to post, perhaps a crudely sketched diagram might clarify what is happening?

DiddyDavies

troffasky said:

You don't get away with it just because you've managed to hide it for long enough:

https://www.wiplow.co.uk/featured-help/2018/4/26/the-curious-case-of-fidlers-castle-part-1-how-a-hidden-home-changed-planning-law

I used to drive past "Fiddler's castle" on a regular basis and think that the council simply chose him to make an example of as he had initially managed to fool them.
The building was well set back from any road and unless you knew exactly where to look, it was very difficult to notice it but about one mile away, there was a traveller's camp that often had unauthorised building work going on (amongst many other instances of illegal activity)  but when this was reported to the council, nothing was done.

I know some people will say rules are rules but this building was totally on private lane, wasn't overlooking any neighbouring property and IMO, was actually a nice looking and well built property. (although, not to everyone's taste).

Davesnave

troffasky said:

Absent the photographs that the OP is unwilling to post, perhaps a crudely sketched diagram might clarify what is happening?

It's pretty easy to understand what has happened, apparently some time ago, but the posts about semantics and Mr Fidler are essentially irrelevancies.

On this forum one tends to receive in proportion to the quality of the info supplied, including plans, estimates of size, photos etc, so if specifics are missing, threads soon fizzle out, which is what this one is doing now.

[Deleted User]

Here is a very crude drawing.


The gate is higher than the roof of the new bit they built so completely obscures it. It isn't visible from anywhere except on the flat roof of our garage.

troffasky

I am just guessing as there are no dimensions but I think it would have been permitted development, so you're not likely to be able to pursue the planning side of things here.

ETA: although as it's within 2m of the boundary, it can't be over 3m tall; is it?

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/10/conservatories

If your insurance comes with legal cover, see what they advise. The practical problem for you is that the costs of pursuing a legal route [whatever that may be] will surely vastly outweigh any benefit to you.

Davesnave

It would have been reasonable for the former neighbour to have a gate in that position from the moment their house was completed, which is why there is no mileage in trying to claim they deliberately concealed what they'd done. Besides, they did it before the law was altered following the Fidler case, and that legislation couldn't be applied retrospectively.

grumbler

troffasky said:

I am just guessing as there are no dimensions but I think it would have been permitted development,

I wouldn't be so sure. E.g. a porch is 'permitted' only if it's 2m away from the boundary.

Davesnave

grumbler said:

troffasky said:

I am just guessing as there are no dimensions but I think it would have been permitted development,

I wouldn't be so sure. E.g. a porch is 'permitted' only if it's 2m away from the boundary.

But all this is irrelevant if it happened way back in the mists of time.

I have rich neighbours who built a huge modern coach barn and applied to have a first floor in it for 'apple storage.' The council refused this, and rightly so, as they had few apple trees and you don't fit 10 Velux windows for storing fruit! Nevertheless, the neighbours built the first floor anyway, and when they judged it was safe, they installed a boiler, two staircases and bathroom or kitchen extractors etc. No concealment. I picked it up with a long lense from the main road while shooting landscapes.

I could have dropped them in it, but their work on the property has been generally tasteful and it's only visible to them close-to, so I didn't.

The work was done in 2015. It's now beyond the reach of enforcement. Things like this go on all the time. Councils are strapped for cash and have real problems to deal with, like homelessness.

Jeepers_Creepers

It's a toughie, mojo - as an issue it hovers in the middle of the 'does it really make any difference?' area. And I guess the answer is 'It might' and 'it might not'...

I hope that helps.

I mean, it hasn't made a jot of practical difference to you for the X years it's been there. I'd also say there's no way this would have made any difference to any insurance claim you'd have made in that time. However, it might well become an issue should you come to sell - might. Or might not. Chances are any new buyer would be more annoyed by the fact it's been done - how dare they! - rather than it having any practical effect more than you've suffered. Ie, none.

I think what I would do in your case - if I had a genuine concern about it - is to let facts speak for themselves. I would contact my insurance company - with which I'd have LP because I'm not stupid - and let them know what's just been discovered. Their response will surely be one of two; 'From what you've described, it's not an issue that concerns us...' or 'Oops - that could have consequences and does need addressing...'

For the latter, you now potentially have LP behind you if needed. (I say 'potentially' because they often won't take on tricky cases like this, even if the situation is pretty clear; they just don't want to get bogged down in a drawn-out dispute.)

Armed with this info I'd first approach the neighb in an apologetic and sympathetic manner; "You aren't going to like this, I'm afraid, but I've just become aware that part of your house has been extended by the previous owner without permission and without Planning or Build Regs - I have no issue with any of that - but it has been attached to my property without my knowledge or permission. In fact I've been told the guy did it when we were away on holiday! My insurance company has informed me that is potentially a serious issue, and needs addressing. I know it wasn't anything you've done, so I feel bad about this, but now that I know about it, I can't ignore it without it causing me all sorts of bother with insurance and when I come to sell..."

The solution, I guess, is for the guy to have a new wall built fully on his land.

If the insurance says it's not a problem, then you are on more difficult terrain; you only have the potential loss in value of your property to consider.